Unholy Moly 2
November 9th, 2007From the Mormon-owned daily in Salt Lake:
Deseret Morning News | Intro change in Book of Mormon spurs discussion
In the interest of another viewpoint.
My point in publishing this is that I believe Mormonism and the LDS church are a unique picture of American religion. When a change like this happens, it’s fun to watch from the sidelines. There are a lot of arguments which can be successfully made, but I’m just going to ask that if you choose to comment about this, do so to add something good to the discussion. I’d like to find out if blurbomat readers even care about stuff like this. When Heather and I travel, we are usually asked about Utah culture and Mormonism, so I assume it’s a natural curiosity and something of an interest.
My take: Doesn’t change my views about religion, god or Mormonism. Just interesting that the change was all over the local media yesterday and last night. Haven’t seen it on the national news. But isn’t that what makes the internet enjoyable? Discussions about local issues with insight from other locales?? o
-
This entry is filed under religion, utah. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You may leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. Please read the Terms of Service before leaving a response.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I, for one, am glad you posted about this. As an ex-Mormon myself (well, I’m probably still on the rolls somewhere), I don’t actively follow church news, but am still intrigued by the goings-on in the church when I hear about them. It’s also interesting to hear opinions on both sides of the discussion, although I won’t air my opinions here.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
It’s funny that as a mormon living in Chicago, I get most of my news about the church from you.
What I have to say about this issue is that it’s about time they acknowledged the DNA evidence. One small step for logic, I say.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I find this passage most interesting (and I don’t know html, so I don’t know how to offset it):
It “eliminates a certain minor embarrassment in the use of language, that’s all,” said John L. Sorensen, professor emeritus of anthropology at Brigham Young University, adding it has no impact on the book’s substance.
I don’t believe in any of the mythology of Joseph Smith or how he happened upon the plates. But if I were Mormon and I did believe that, I wonder if I would agree that the “substance” is not impacted.
Making him just another guy who did not have a visit from an angel and who did not have ancestors from Jerusalem (as they seem to capitulate to, given the reference to the DNA studies and this language change) seems mighty significant to me.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Another voice of interest here. When my family lived on campus at MIT sometimes it felt as though we were surrounded by Mormons. Almost to a one, they seemed the nicest of people, which spurred an interest in Mormonism.
But, uh, that’s where my brain exploded. Any religion requires the proverbial leap, or leaps, of faith, but the cognitive dissonance provoked by all these scientists and engineers taking that leap with a religion whose basic stories were so easily deconstructed by science and reason was just too much for me.
That said, the best Daddies on the playground always seemed to be Mormon.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I don’t have so much a problem with claims in the Good Book of choice not being able to be backed up with science as I feel that some of the writing is not to be taken literally…the bible, for instance, should be viewed more as a record of God’s relationship with mankind (i.e. it concerns the spiritual realm) vs. being a scientific document. That being said, biblical writings, however, certainly have much more credibility when they can be validated in one way or another. What I DO have a problem with is religious tenets that are NOT backed up by the bible yet church leaders pound these into the heads of their followers as if they are gospel (small pun) themselves. And so when those tenets get rescinded or revised (because they are hooey in the first place), this certainly has a negative effect on the church’s credibility. Take for example the recent recanting of the “limbo” tenet by the pope. Nothing in the bible about it so why has that tenet been espoused by the Catholic church for so many years? Well I guess this is all just another example of how leaders mislead, it happens everywhere there are humans, not just in churches but all throughout society. Just my two cents’ worth, I’m no scholar, merely an observer of life on the planet.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Our reps from Layton are coming in next week for training. As you would imagine, all but one in their office is Mormon. I think I’ve just decided which dinner I’m going to attend. There should be some lively discussion.
As for adding to the conversation, as a Catholic I’ve always been intrigued by translations of holy texts, e.g. all the different versions of the Bible that are out there. Usually a change in text is justified by scholarly research that suggests the translation from the original language is incorrect. Context and correlation with other ancient texts tends to be paramount to the research. In this case they are changing a very recent text that obviously has no translation issues. That rings of a “correction”. I’m actually quite surprised to learn that the BoM contains additions to the original text.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
@ Joel
I find it interesting that you know the status of your reps religion (all but one, huh?). Do you have reps from Minneapolis and if so, are all but one Lutheran? Us Mormons are distinctively marked people at times.
As an actively engaged Latter-day living in San Francisco I felt as though people already had their mind made up as to the makeup of my character/self/being. I took (and still do) great pleasure in dispelling those generalizations. Probably why I like to stir the pot like I do.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I am interested. Especially since the Mormon religion is so “new” and thus very newly historically documented and thus easily criticized versus others’ religions whose histories are shrouded in the mystery of time. Personally, I don’t see a huge, groundbreaking, spiritually altering change with the new Lamanite definition. But it will be interesting nonetheless.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
i have learned all that i know about mormonism from you and heather, and I have to say that even this intrigues me, as I did not know that it was written as it was in the BoM. so… is this a “correction” or an error in translation
or something that is now making many people question their faith?
November 9th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
This is certainly an interesting development and and a correction of a mistake made to the introduction of the BoM inserted in 1981 (not part of the original BoM text).
It gives credence to a theory that many LDS have held for years that the people of the BoM were located on a geographically small portion of the western hemisphere (as opposed to populating the entire North and South Americant continents).
As a believing member of the LDS church, I’m glad that they’re making the change. It’s been clear that some members and leaders of the church have made some incorrect claims (such as the Lamanites being the principle ancestors of Native Americans). I don’t believe that there was any intent to deceive or manipulate (others will certainly disagree).
I’d like to add that the substance of this change doesn’t really say much about LDS doctrine or change much about how people will view the BoM itself. There will be some LDS who are disturbed by the church backing away from this statement, many like myself will be happy to see the change, and there will be critics who see it as another reason to distrust the LDS church. Hopefully, it will encourage _everyone_ to use facts in their arguments for (or against) the church.
November 9th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I am LDS. But I don’t have a lot of experience with Utah Mormons, except to expect the unexpected. They are a weird bunch–especially the ones I am related to.
I think it’s an interesting change to the introduction. Personally,I think it shows God’s proclivity to revealing only enough doctrine for us to handle at any one time. I think it was in the interest of protecting all American Indians from slaughter if God revealed that the Lamanites were those same Indians that wre being slaughtered willy nilly…sure for many it came too late…
JMHO
November 9th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Coincidentally, I FINALLY received confirmation of my name being removed from the LDS records yesterday! Even though I was never active and have been claiming to NOT be a Mormon for at least two decades, it feels so good to be free!
Just wanted to share.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Big conference at Princeton tonight and tomorrow…
http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ecsrelig/mormonism&politics
November 9th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
to Patatomic
It’s actually quite obvious that “all but one” is Mormon since the “one” is the only one working on Mormon holidays that fall during the work week. Also, the couple of guys that I speak to regularly are quite nice and we discuss many things including religion. Our conversations range from snow on the ski slopes in UT to headline news about polygamy.
Do I know the religion of all my reps, no. Do I know the religion of several other than the Mormon ones, yes. And for the record both guys in the office in MN are Catholic.
For the record, my personal experience has been that many more Mormons broadcast their religious affiliation than most other religions. If I had to guess, it’s probably that whole missionary thing that the church pushes. But I could be wrong.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
I’m not Mormon, nor have I ever actually met a Mormon IRL (that I know of anyway), but the Mormon faith fascinates me. So yes, I enjoy all of your little tidbits.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Having come from a religion much like the LDS, I find this stuff fascinating and always like to get the ex-Mormon view on these things, since I feel like the only ex-weird religion person out there sometimes. Plus, I went to Salt Lake City a couple of years ago and was intrigued and wondered what those girls giving the tour were really like behind closed doors, like what is really going on here? And can they ever return to normal? OR am I really missing the real meaning of life, which of course the ex-weird religion kids always wonder…
November 9th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
What strikes me as fascinating is how members of the LDS Church are quick to come up with explanations as to why there was an error in assuming the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians yet, when it comes to the translation of the gold plates, if a non-LDS member were to say “actually, there’s scientific evidence proving that you can’t put a top hat on a gold plate and suddenly be able to read what was written on the plate” the LDS people would say ‘no really, this did happen’ . . .I don’t understand the disconnect.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:22 am
@ Joel
“…Mormon holidays that fall during the work week.”
?!?!
What? I’m a Mormon and I’ve never heard of these so called “holidays!” Have I been missing out on something all this time?! Ugh! I’m gonna be pissed if I find out there are holidays I’ve been working all these years!
November 10th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Joeythegirl (or anyone else who may know)… How do you go about getting your name officially removed for the church records? I’ve made inquires to the church about that in the past but always got the run around and never a straight answer.
And as to the change that was made to the intro of the BoM, I don’t understand what the big deal is. If anything, it’s nice to see a religion actually make a change based on DNA/science. Besides, the change was made to the intro and not the actual scriptures, right? And if that’s the case, it just proves what religious people already believe: god is perfect but human beings are falliable and make mistakes.
November 10th, 2007 at 10:07 am
I’m skeptical about all things religious, and for various reasons Mormonism has fascinated me since I was a kid, and I’ve always attempted to learn as much about a particular religion as I can — without joining in the festivities — before commenting. I personally think it’s refreshing when “the powers that be” risk at least the ire of their followers to make a necessary change in their holy texts to conform to irrefutable truth — based on our current understanding of science — rather than blunder along with the old despite the evidence. It makes everyone look foolish.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:06 am
To your question ‘are your readers interested’ - yes.
I have had exposure to lds-activities since I was a small girl, our little town had a very active community (parish?) and when I overnighted with various girlfriends who were lds I’d end up at their place of worship to hang Sunday mornings. I was always welcome at their family home evenings, as well.
I consider myself to be a person of faith - I’m Lutheran - but I also studied the sciences for, like, 8 years after high school. Biochemistry, molecular biology, evolutionary biology. Not necessarily the stuff that makes bible thumpers thrilled. As a result, I’m neither the bible-thumper nor the in-your-face disparager of others’ beliefs.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s a good thing when topics of faith are studied and picked apart and questioned. My childhood pastor encouraged me to question the biblical passages wound around our lives. I believe my faith to be stronger because of that open self-examination.
I appreciate your insight to the LDS faith because you’ve got street-cred with the LDS faith. You’re former missionary, right? I mean, I think you’ve earned the right to point to something and say “yes, this, upon examination, is bogus” and anyone who riles up and screams “BLASPHEMY!” is clearly not secure in his or her own chosen faith.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Alina points out something that drives me somewhat nuts about living in Utah, especially as a non-Mormon. Whenever ANYTHING happens in the church it’s front page news. Even if it’s just the Prophet picking his nose. Or sneezing. Whatever.
I guess it’s underestandable given all the LDS who live here but AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHH.
November 10th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I hadn’t heard of this shattering news development, it didn’t reach Ohio. It wouldn’t really affect my opinion in any way- if I had one. I’ve been judged so many times based on the sheer fact that I’m Catholic, I dare not to do the same to others.
I would liken this change to the blue laws that are still on the books in the south. Nobody enforces it, but nobody goes through the trouble to change it until somebody decides it’s worth the effort.
November 10th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
This story isn’t getting picked up by the national press. I just did a search of the wires here at work and found nothing. There was, however, a story about the Osmond funeral and Mormon volunteers during the California wildfires.
As for “lostinutah’s” frustration over the abundance of LDS news in SLC, that just goes with the turf. SLC is the headquarters of one of the fastest growing churches in the world. Even the small stuff the church does will be news. But rest assured that each city has it’s own obsession. If you lived in Rome, you’d have to sit through stories about the Pope picking his nose. In Washington, it’s Nancy Pelosi picking her nose. In Detroit, it’s the head of the big three automakers picking their noses. In LA, it’s Sumner Redstone picking his nose.
Every city has it’s local business, and that business will get a lot of ink. That’s just the way it goes.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:02 am
You know… The Mormon holidays…
Mormanzaa, Morm Kipur, Mormadan…